tv [untitled] May 19, 2011 12:30am-1:00am PDT
commissioner peterson and now: i am agreeing not sooto. >> the vote is 4-0, the rehearing request is denied. >> we will call item no. 6, which is appeal #11-040, foster interstate inc. vs. zoning administrator. is appealing a relocation request dated march 11 the revoked because it was issued over the counter without planning department revere. good -- review.
a permit is to obtain final inspection for work approval to install a painted wall general advertising sign. >> i am here representing foster interstate media and its appeal of the request for a renewal permits. i am joined by the vice- president of fun -- foster interstate, who is available to answer any questions you might have. i would like to begin by making it said that foster interstates has pending are requests for reconsideration of planning for notice of violation for the notice. that notice of violation was issued on grounds that they believe it's the sign to be abandoned. as the planning board of grieve -- they believe the sign was
abandoned. as the planning board agreed, it must be deferred to the judge who will be hearing the request and is not before the board to nine. the only issue before the board is whether or not the renewal permits is properly issued and whether it should be reinstated, and that is the allocation of our appeal. the renewal application was applied for and approved by the field inspector, and therefore, there was no basis with a letter requesting revocation of the renewal permit. the grounds for revoking the permit were that it was bob reviewed by the department of city planning -- it was not reviewed by the department of city planning, but it indicates it was reviewed on january 14
prior to its approval on january 19, 2011. they concede that it was reviewed by the department and now takes the position it was erroneously prove, linking to it in adequate review. they argue that had the rearview occurred under the plan in code, it would have been clearer they use for which renewal was sought was abandoned, so there is no provision of the planning code requiring such a specific type of review for renewal of a fine. more correctly, -- of a sign. more correctly, the declaration states there is a department toll on written policy -- policy that is on written not to approve renewal of signs over the counter -- un-written not to
approve renewal of signs over the counter, but as stated in his declaration on january 14, 2011, he presented the renewal permit application to the planning department and to the planner who worked with, who reviewed the application in detail. i am told the process should at least an hour, and he approved the renewal permits. after reviewing the claims that they have a policy, they revered -- reviewed it. i have the renewal permits with me tonight and would be happy to provide copies to the board. ultimately, we think there is no
foundation other than an unwritten policy the evidence shows the department does not always follow to show the permit was approved in error. we do not believe there are any grounds to seek revocation or to revoke the permit. the planning department brief states under other circumstances there may have been concerned revoking the permit would have a negative impact because they would have made an investment in reliance which the permit. the brief includes they did not have a negative impact, and this is incorrect. first, as soon as the renewal permit is issued, they began marketing to potential advertisers. secondly, and more importantly, since foster interstate began marketing the sign, it has since
invested its good name in the sign, and that was harelocationl permits. foster enterprises prided itself on all main -- only using general advertising signs, and the planning department has never maintained a notice of violation against it. despite the implication that all fine companies operate illegal region -- sign companies operate illegal signs, foster's make sure all signs are legal and that advertising will be as promised. foster does not put its name to something until they determine it is illegal -- legal so the revocation force them to impugn their did name.
region in g-- their good name. the planning department does agree that argument as to whether or not the sign has been abandoned that will be considered by the administrative judge in our request for reconsideration is her subsequent to this hearing -- heard subsequent to this during the reagan and the proper procedure was followed in obtaining this, and -- subsequent to this. the proper procedure was followed in obtaining this. we request the board rent our appeals. we are happy to answer any questions. the >> is there a representative here from the problem and -- the
property owner? seeing nine. -- none. >> president, members of the board, good evening. i am with the planning department. the core of this case is a new sign that was installed in january by foster interstate media and whether the sign is legal and whether the notice of violation our department issued was issued correctly, and under the plan incurred, that issue is decided cheyenne and -- by an administrative law judge with a request for reconsideration, rather than by this board. a permit issued in this appeal is not needed to establish the
legal status of this new signed installed in january, and the administrative law judge is the appropriate path for for this matter. the appellant does raise the question of whether the permanent who was improperly revoked. yes, it was appropriately revoked. here is why. there was a 1999 permits that authorizeda legal general advertising on his property. but was never finalized, but under a policy resolution provided to foster some time ago, it does not make a difference. the permit is equally valid as though it were finalized. by the end of 2003, that 1999
sinai 19 and not removed, and no general advertising 19 -- the 1999 sign had been removed. after the sun was installed, foster came to the city it -- the sign was installed, foster came to the city with the renewal permit, and in all honesty, we made mistake. we did approve that permit over the counter. as soon as we found that out, we remedied a mistake. had a permit been reviewed appropriately, it never would have been issued in the first place, because the sign was abandoned. between 2003 of this year, the three-year abandonment period had long since run, and the sign
had reached the end of its life. at no time were they requiring identifying placards be placed on the sign or submitted to the city. photographs demonstrate no general advertising plans after 2003, and this is consistent with the recent inventory to the city, which lifted the prior suco. company as being the same company that installed it in 1999 and took it down in 2003, so the appellate seems to ask you reinstate a permit that was sought after the work in question was performed, which
was approved erroneously, and which all parties agree was not even necessary in the first place. we respectfully urge that knew of molten -- that you uphold to have this held before a lot judge. region in -- before a law judge. >> in dealing with the types of permits, the 1999 permit was actually a building permit, was it not? >> i am not sure, but it was in the category of building permits. >> your policy of whether the sign was final or not still
remains a sign. does that relate to your entitlement versus the building department entitlement bowman -- entitlement? >> the planning department entitlement relates to our review of been given general advertising sign as legal or illegal, so it relates more to that. >> i think the building department would have a different opinion. there is a timeline during which a permit can be filed. does that come into play? >> i think it certainly could, and now professor duffy could speak to that issue if you would
like. >> you have anything the talks about what kind of permanent it was? >> we do. it was assigned to permit. -- a sign permit. >> i understand no work was performed, but i do not understand what was the length of time before the department realized your error? >> i will get your response. my sense it was when we received a complaint and went to verify
my answer -- commissioners, could you ask me the question again so i am clear in my answer? >> if it was issued in 1999, what type of time frame applies to the permit for it to remain valid? >> there would have been a time frame ranging from four months to six months to a year to three years commo, but i would say wee probably talking about four to six months when the work should have been done. after that time, if you want to do the work, you have to come in and renew the permit or extend a permit. >> was that ever done? >> they came in 2011 and renew the permit and to receive final
permission and all work was complete. the statement would say the work was done back in 1999. >> is there a final certificate of completion? >> it would not be a certificate of completion. the building inspector with find the job card, but that did not happen puree go -- did not happen. it never got finalized during the time the permit was valid, so they came in 2011.
>> how does the renewal work from the planning department to the tilden department in light of -- new issue the final permit, don't you? >> they do inspections on these permits. in this case, that is what happened, and when our inspector went there, i am sure he saw the painted walls fine and signed it off, because he did not -- -- painted wall sign, because he did not know when it was signed off. >> you only to the experts -- the inspections? >> we would have done it for the 1999 permit had we been called. that did not happen. we had a final inspections. nsign permits are complicated,
because they are not aware of all the regulations that go with that. we go there and see if a permit for the sign that was there in 1999. there would be a copy of that permit, and we would be doing the inspection as if it was done in 1990. we cannot turn back the clock to finalize a building permit, so i do not know when the sign was put top -- up, but i did not realize they painted over the sign and put up a new one, which would need a permit. the renewal permits only covered the scope of work approved under
the 1999 part, not some other signs, if that is what happened. >> is there any public comment on this item? seen none, we will move into rebuttal. and you have three ministers -- now you have three minutes. >> just to clarify, the resolution states that and issued a permanent that is not final is considered equivalent to a permit, and so i would not want anything that is coming out of today's hearing to question the valid did see -- the validity of the policy and how they treat building permits and signs, so they have made an express written policy to treat it as a valid signs.
the two issues are what to bring to your attention. the first is he went and argued the sun was abandoned and they would not have to issue -- the fine was abandoned and they would not have issued the renewal of -- the sign was abandoned and they would not have issued the renewal permits. the city received a complaint on january 14, 2011, the same day planning signed off on the renewal permits, so i question whether all the information and now mr. snyder and now has, all of which comes from our brief or reconsideration, is information the planning department would have hadn't to refuse -- would have had to refuse to offer a building permit.
we do not agree with the facts they present, but we are not here to present and today. and they do not have a policy requiring the permits to go upstairs. dbi seems to say there is nothing and no wrong with the renewal permits. we saw the renewal permits to clean up the paper work. we did not follow any code or express written policies triggered if there were not any grounds to -- policies. there were not any grounds to revoke a. it is really an issue for vanilla -- for the alj.
we are saying it should not be revoked. thank you 3 much. >> this thought they could never do anything to the policies -- this body could never do anything to the policies of the planning commission. in your brief, you indicated you felt the property owner should have gotten notice. can you elaborate on anathema -- on that? >> there are three elements of the notus arguments. the first is the planning department has agreed and it is their policy to notify if they consider a sign to be abandoned. apparently they first learned it was possible sign was abandoned over a year before they issued a notice of violation, so one of
our issues was that it did not seem as though either if the request that the planning department was following its own policy, because no notice was issued when they thought it might be, and no notice was sent to the property owner. the other point is the planning department has made much of the fact of the fine was not in inventory, and in 2003, they sent letters to sign owners asking them to inventory their signs. they did not send an inventory request to the owner of the property, so the fact that they talk about it not being in inventory, they never requested that if he plays there, and they agreed they never notified the property owner or the media, so that is one of the issues we see.
we are slightly changing the subject, but they are in negotiation to be operated as a sign in 2009 to 2010. they claimed it had been abandoned, so we feel as if the media does not trust sign companies unless sign companies are turning in sign companies. >> that is in your breeze. my other question is is there a published list of companies? >> not to my knowledge. >> there is no way for your client to know if this was in the inventory list or not? >> that is correct. every time they look at the sign, they go through every record they have on the sign
through the planning department and the building department. at the time, there was nothing to indicate any issue with design department, no complaints. there was simply a sign, and the least bit from the property owner, -- they lease it from the property owner who controls the sign. >> before you sit down, in your opening, you stated you had evidence of four add additional permanence -- permits that were not processed in the manner of planning arguments. what was the time on about? >> i have four of fun -- of
them. >> we said, we will go see if renewal permits are issued that way, and we found four permits issued over the counter. >> for what time? >> this was 2009, 2010, 2009. >> was that as far back as you went? was that an exhaustive review? >> it was not an exhaustive review. >> have you shared that with planning? >> no, and that is why i brought it up with few -- with you. >> thank you for this opportunity.
she brings to light the question of a policy. the planning department requires either a good review of linnean and new apartment. that did not happen. you feel the general advertising it is complex, and adequate review rarely could take place at the counter. we are told they have 30 sons in san francisco.
i think it is interesting to note is that they did not take now on board the fact that they did not have the visual displays they are required, so i find that interesting. i think it is also of note the resolution states that a permit that is not signed is just as valid as one that is. the permit was not required. i think we all agree to this. and ms. oswood's remarks they did seek the permit to clean u